Nice link, but it doesn't answer the "big" question, it just starts the whole argument over again.....

So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."

So in that kid's universe, does his parents & friends argue about the big bang/religion?
____________

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.

And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]

What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.

You do understand the difference between the sentences "The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe" and "The Big Bang didn't have God to start universe" don't you?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nice link, but it doesn't answer the "big" question, it just starts the whole argument over again.....

So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."

So in that kid's universe, does his parents & friends argue about the big bang/religion?

It's proof that too much SETI can be hazardous to your mental health.
____________Join BOINC Synergy!

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.

And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]

What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).

I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.

And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]

What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).

I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.

OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.

And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]

What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).

I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.

OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?

Because we are in the here and now.

Why do you believe in chance after I have shown you that is impossible?

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.

And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]

What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).

I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.

OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?

Because we are in the here and now.

Why do you believe in chance after I have shown you that is impossible?

So the supreme being made the laws of physics for us after all?

If you have shown chance to be impossible I missed it, can you provide a link?

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...